SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

9

H-Index

Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education

an Open Access Journal

The Effectiveness of Monopoly Mathematics Games in Improving Fifth-Grade Students' Learning Outcomes: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Simbolon Lamhot
Universitas Pembangunan Panca Budi
Indonesia
lamhotsimbolon37@gmail.com
Muhammad Budi Wijaya
State Senior High Swasta Dharmawangsa Medan
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Monopoly Mathematics Games in improving fifth-grade students' mathematics learning outcomes. It also sought to determine whether students taught using the game achieved better performance than those receiving conventional instruction.

    Methodology: This study employed a quasi-experimental design involving experimental and control groups at SD Islam Darul Mu'minin. The sample consisted of 50 fifth-grade students selected through simple random sampling. Data were collected using essay tests, while instrument validity and reliability were examined. Statistical analyses, including normality, homogeneity, and independent samples t-tests, were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22.0.

    Main Findings: The findings indicated that students taught through Monopoly Mathematics Games achieved higher mathematics learning outcomes than those receiving conventional instruction. The experimental group obtained a mean score of 75.64, whereas the control group achieved 67.00. Statistical testing revealed a significant difference between the two groups with a significance value of 0.008. Cognitive achievement in the experimental group was also higher across Bloom’s taxonomy levels.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The originality of this study lies in the development of a modified Monopoly Mathematics Game designed specifically for elementary mathematics learning. The game integrates knowledge cards, opportunity cards, help cards, and mathematical problem-solving activities. Additionally, this study evaluates students’ cognitive achievement based on Bloom’s taxonomy, thereby providing broader evidence regarding the effectiveness of game-based learning in mathematics education.

  • How to cite

    The Effectiveness of Monopoly Mathematics Games in Improving Fifth-Grade Students’ Learning Outcomes: A Quasi-Experimental Study. (2026). Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education, 4(2), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.37251/ijome.v4i2.3448

    More Citation Formats

  • 12
    Abstract views
    8
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. [1] G. Zhang, H. Wu, A. Xie, and H. Cheng, “The association between medical student research engagement with learning outcomes,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10872981.2022.2100039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2100039
    2. [2] L. Peng, L. Guo, and J. Ma, “Psychological factors affecting music learning outcomes: A quantitative study,” Cogent Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2026, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2026.2633841. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2026.2633841
    3. [3] A. Sultana, N. Abdul Latheef, N. Siby, A. Sellami, S. Akber Abbasi, and Z. Ahmad, “What shapes AI learning outcomes? Investigating the role of self-efficacy, institutional support and gender,” Cogent Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2026, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2026.2625448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2026.2625448
    4. [4] L. Yang, Z. Liu, and H. Yin, “Examining the relationship between undergraduates’ motivation, engagement and learning outcomes in China: A three-wave longitudinal investigation,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–18, 2026, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2026.2656282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2026.2656282
    5. [5] L. J. Stainbank, “Addressing the learning outcomes for professional skills using an integrated teaching strategy,” Cogent Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2022, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2109798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2109798
    6. [6] J. L. Hill and J. Hunter, “Examining the mathematics education values of diverse groups of students,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1614–1633, 2023, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2023.2184280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2023.2184280
    7. [7] L. Wedman and C. Bennet, “Views on concept in mathematics education,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10986065.2025.2465921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2025.2465921
    8. [8] E. de Waal, “Idealistic mathematics education: The institute for the development of mathematics education (IOWO) and dutch education reform, 1970–1980,” Hist. Educ., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 89–112, 2026, doi: 10.1080/0046760X.2025.2553159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2025.2553159
    9. [9] S. K. Boadu and E. Bonyah, “The role of philosophy of mathematics education in mathematics teacher education,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2433832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2433832
    10. [10] L. Jacques, A. Noyes, and C. Brignell, “Interventions and their ideologies in mathematics education in England,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 48, no. 02, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2025.2592285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2025.2592285
    11. [11] A. Canogullari and F. Radmehr, “Task design principles in mathematics education: A literature review,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–34, 2025, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2025.2457365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2457365
    12. [12] H. Alshammari, S. Shaheen, S. Mahmoud, A. Al-Rabiah, and K. Alyahya, “Evaluating the transformative impact of online education on medical student learning outcomes,” Adv. Med. Educ. Pract., vol. 15, pp. 1103–1111, 2024, doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S444830. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S444830
    13. [13] T. Trinh Thi Phuong, N. Nguyen Danh, T. Tuyet Thi Le, T. Nguyen Phuong, T. Nguyen Thi Thanh, and C. Le Minh, “Research on the application of ICT in Mathematics education: Bibliometric analysis of scientific bibliography from the Scopus database,” Cogent Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2084956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2084956
    14. [14] S. Abramovich, M. L. Connell, and J. Mintz, “Digital technology in PK-6 mathematics education,” Comput. Sch., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2025, doi: 10.1080/07380569.2025.2436820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2025.2436820
    15. [15] J. A. Russo, A. Roche, T. Russo, and P. Kalogeropoulos, “Examining primary school educators’ preferences for using digital versus non-digital games to support mathematics instruction,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 1778–1803, 2025, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2024.2361699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2361699
    16. [16] S. Lipovetsky, “Luck, logic, and white lies: The mathematics of games; 2nd ed.,” Technometrics, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 604–606, 2023, doi: 10.1080/00401706.2023.2262889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2023.2262889
    17. [17] S. Videgaín and P. García Sánchez, “Performance study of minimax and reinforcement learning agents playing the turn-based game iwoki,” Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 717–744, 2021, doi: 10.1080/08839514.2021.1934265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.1934265
    18. [18] A. Nazmi et al., “SNAP participation decreases food insecurity among California public university students: A quasi-experimental study,” J. Hunger Environ. Nutr., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 123–138, 2023, doi: 10.1080/19320248.2022.2099777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2022.2099777
    19. [19] E. Buelens, L. Dewitte, J. Dezutter, A. Vandenhoeck, and A. Dillen, “The outcomes of healthcare chaplaincy on hospitalized patients. A quasi-experimental study in Belgium,” J. Spiritual. Ment. Heal., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 141–164, 2024, doi: 10.1080/19349637.2023.2177239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2023.2177239
    20. [20] D. Alt, “Empowering social perspective-taking and collaboration through digital avatars: a quasi-experimental study,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2026, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2026.2635513. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2026.2635513
    21. [21] J. S. Alnajjar et al., “Impact of an extracurricular research course on medical students: A quasi-experimental study,” Adv. Med. Educ. Pract., vol. 16, pp. 461–470, 2025, doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S509323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S509323
    22. [22] S. C. Oğlak, Ö. Koç, and T. Sönmez, “Midwifery-led continuity-of-care education affects health literacy, empowerment and childbirth fear: A quasi-experimental study,” J. Obstet. Gynaecol., vol. 46, no. 1, p. 2609335, 2026, doi: 10.1080/01443615.2025.2609335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2025.2609335
    23. [23] A. Bargagliotti et al., “Undergraduate learning outcomes for achieving data acumen,” J. Stat. Educ., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 197–211, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10691898.2020.1776653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1776653
    24. [24] M. Befkene Wayessa et al., “Focused family planning counseling increases immediate postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device uptake: A quasi-experimental study,” Open Access J. Contracept., vol. 11, pp. 91–102, 2020, doi: 10.2147/oajc.s246341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S246341
    25. [25] S. Daus, F. F. Vennerød-Diesen, J. Smedsrud, N. Sønstelie, and F. Siddiq, “Blended learning for early numeracy is no panacea: A quasi-experimental study,” Scand. J. Educ. Res., vol. 38, no. 31, pp. 1–35, 2026, doi: 10.1080/00313831.2026.2642596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2026.2642596
    26. [26] J. Caspersen and J. C. Smeby, “Placement training and learning outcomes in social work education,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 2650–2663, 2021, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1750583. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750583
    27. [27] J. L. Pallant, J. Blijlevens, A. Campbell, and R. Jopp, “Mastering knowledge: The impact of generative AI on student learning outcomes,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 714–735, 2025, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2025.2487570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2487570
    28. [28] P. Dhar, T. Rocks, R. M. Samarasinghe, G. Stephenson, and C. Smith, “Augmented reality in medical education: Students’ experiences and learning outcomes,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2021, doi: 10.1080/10872981.2021.1953953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1953953
    29. [29] X. Xu, Z. Shi, N. A. Bos, and H. Wu, “Student engagement and learning outcomes: An empirical study applying a four-dimensional framework,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2268347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2268347
    30. [30] J. Gleeson, A. Doyle, and N. O’Neill, “Student learning outcomes in the Irish context: Mixing curriculum paradigms, cultures, and design models,” Irish Educ. Stud., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–28, 2025, doi: 10.1080/03323315.2025.2483241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2025.2483241
    31. [31] A. Ioannidou and G. Zarifis, “Educational governance and the construction of learning outcomes of young adults in Europe: Conceptual aspects and empirical evidence,” Stud. Educ. Adults, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 403–420, 2024, doi: 10.1080/02660830.2024.2434205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2024.2434205